Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:58, 14 February 2019 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,551 edits →פֿינצטערניש TBAN: r← Previous edit Revision as of 02:00, 15 February 2019 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,869 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/February) (botNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
:::::: Thank you. I'll look at it tomorrow. ]. ] (]) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC) :::::: Thank you. I'll look at it tomorrow. ]. ] (]) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Done. Thank you again. ] (]) 19:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC) :::::: Done. Thank you again. ] (]) 19:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

== Query regarding recent ruling ==

Recently, as I understand it, in your capacity as a Misplaced Pages Administrator, you ruled that a Misplaced Pages editor who has been prohibited by the Arbitration Committee from "posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence" is not bound by this restriction when either the comments are directed at the Committee itself, or the postings can be construed as "criticism of Wiki institutions or editors in official roles for their actions in those roles".

I am part of a team of researchers who study the ways and means Misplaced Pages chooses to self-regulate and the effectiveness of such, and I would be interested to know if you have considered the full implications of this ruling, which, as I understand it, is now considered a (non-binding) precedent for this user's conduct management arrangements, and indeed any other user subjected to a similar restriction (although our research has failed to reveal any othe individuals who have been subjected to such a precisely worded prohibition of this nature).

Would you agree, for example, that the restriction as worded specifically does not bar the user from posting criticism of anybody, much less Misplaced Pages officialdom, it only bars them from the subset of that which falls into the realm of speculation on motives or reflecting on competence. To be specific, it seems obvious it would not bar them from stating an official has not updated a complainant with the results of an investigation, and this appears contrary to their stated role and function, while it would bar them from speculating this was because they do not, infect, exist. That they are unicorns, perhaps, was I think the implication of the comment.

Similarly, it would bar them from alleging the lack of communication is part of a cover-up, for example. Which, unlike a suggestion of mythical status, would have serious legal implications given the myriad of different contractual and ethical relationships that exist between the legal owners of Misplaced Pages, and the assorted individuals who regulate many aspects of it, such as the important functions of prevention of harassment and disclosure of private information.

Matt Baker. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You mean ? That was a statement of opinion in my capacity as an individual administrator; it is not a "ruling" and is not binding on anybody else. I'm not inclined to engage in speculation about the extent of a restriction that applies only to one editor and their specific circumstances. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

== Deleting a AE request ==

Hi,

I am sorry, but I am confused. You seemed to have no problem with , which did not follow the template either.

I asked repeatedly for guidance, yet none was given... I would have thought the sensible thing to do is to review it, not delete it out of hand. ] (]) 16:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:Your submission did not follow the format prescribed for AE requests, which ensures an orderly process and that all required information is present. Also, among ither things, the request lacked the required evidence of prior awareness of discretionary sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

::I appreciate the quick reply. Thank you for pointing out the problems.

::Nevertheless, you haven't answered my question. I used that request that I linked precisely to make sure that this does not happen. Since you were OK with the format of that request, how come my request is not OK? I have seen that templates on Misplaced Pages are not up to date a lot of times, so the thinking was that it's more sensible to use an already existing request rather than use a template which is both confusing (asks to add the notification because without it the request is not taken into consideration, but on the other hand one must first post in order to properly link the section in the notification...) and maybe out of date. Moreover, I have repeatedly asked for help (see the project talk page) because the review process is not explained (does it happen after posting the request? do I have to notify the users BEFORE or AFTER the review?).

::Oh, I forgot. The template asks for a USERNAME. Considering that the request deals with a group of users, how am I supposed to put in several usernames? ] (]) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:::Use the template. Use it with one username, then add others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


== LumaNatic == == LumaNatic ==
Line 54: Line 22:
:{{ping|LumaNatic}} Please respond promptly to the above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC) :{{ping|LumaNatic}} Please respond promptly to the above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|LumaNatic}} Because you have not responded or otherwise edited since, I am blocking you for a week in enforcement of your topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC) ::{{ping|LumaNatic}} Because you have not responded or otherwise edited since, I am blocking you for a week in enforcement of your topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

== FkpCascais ==

Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you, but I want to ask you a question. Am I allowed, or, in case I am not, would you allow me to edit just two lists regarding football: ] and ]? I created those two lists and I am the main contributor on them. They were the reason why I had asked you to allow me to edit football-related pages in my Balkans-related ban. When I created those two lists a decade ago, they were the first with that data to exist in the internet, and a lot of sports journalists, staticians, analists and enthusiasts use them because they ofer valueble data. For instance, since I´ve made them, there was a major increase in local sports media listing and analising the different nationalities and their performance. Unlike the impression the editors which complained against me wanted intentionally to leave, I am a major advocate against nationalism in the region. The reason I got blocked is that being a Serbian editor opposing nationalism, doesn´t mean I cope with anti-Serbian nationalism coming from other places. Does it make sense? For instance, I have no relation whatsoever with football in my life besides enjoying the sport per se. I grew up by living in several different countries and studying in international schools because I come from a family of diplomats. I love multiculturalism and always advocate for openess and multicultural dualogue, and severely oppose isolationism, nationalism and racism. My beliefs are strongly based on my personal experience which made me see all of us are equal regardless of where do we come from, and any nation or nationality has its good and bad people. My initial involvement in Misplaced Pages from the start was to highlight the importance of foreign players in Serbia and in the region, and debunk the nationalists idea that the countries should isolate and hate foreigners. My editing in the football area is based in the notion that foreigners playing in the clubs of the countries in that region contribute to peace and multiculturalism. My point is that the exchange of sportsman from other countries should be embraced as something extremely positive cause, besides the many positive cases, even the ones that failed to addapt, it is always a contribution to cultural exchange. Well, I could go on and on writing about this, but I don´t want to bother you. The point is that I believe my contributions overall are very positive and I will really want to ask you to allow me at least to keep updated this two lists, just them, 2 articles only, because they do no harm to anyone, they contribute to something positive which is multiculturalism, and waiting 6 months and then updating all, it will be a major task, cause it will imply 2 transfer windows and hundreds of players needing to be included. I don´t ask you for nothing more, just this two lists so I can update them, please. ] (]) 02:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
:Looking at your editing history, you are continuously breaching your topic ban by editing Serbia-related articles. ] (]) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|FkpCascais}} The matter of the scope of your topic ban has been addressed in two unsuccessful appeals by you. I am not willing to discuss this further. You have recently violated your topic ban by making edits to content related to the Balkans, among many other examples, at ], by ] and by ] (even assuming the topic is outside the scope of the Balkans, your edit summary certainly was in the scope). Accordingly, in enforcement of your topic ban, I am blocking you for two weeks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


== A request == == A request ==

Revision as of 02:00, 15 February 2019

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

  • Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
  • If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].
  • If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.


Start a new talk topic


Please amend your closure

Please amend your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greenwald Rabbinical family. The consensus was not "delete", rather "merge and delete". All three commenting editors mention the merge part. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Merge and delete" is not possible because of our attribution rules. Sandstein 17:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Please explain. I have seen many merge and delete cases. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete. Sandstein 23:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
My guess is that only one editor made any serious contribution to that article, so Misplaced Pages:Merge_and_delete#Record_authorship_and_delete_history would be easily achievable. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, all content was by תנא קמא. If you want to merge this content, I've pasted it at https://pastebin.com/W9jSFSUR, where it will expire in one week. Sandstein 11:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll look at it tomorrow. Shabbat shalom. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thank you again. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

LumaNatic

Hey Sandstein, last month you closed a discussion topic banning LumaNatic from "anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed." They've since made edits in violation of this topic ban . (Notably, they also haven't made any edits to articles they aren't topic banned from.) Please do the needful. Natureium (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@LumaNatic: Please respond promptly to the above. Sandstein 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@LumaNatic: Because you have not responded or otherwise edited since, I am blocking you for a week in enforcement of your topic ban. Sandstein 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A request

Hello! Would you mind giving a shot to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver and give it a one relist at least. I feel the discussion that was ongoing there is very important Misplaced Pages wise, and maybe we could get a clearer consensus thanks to it? If it ends up in a "no consensus" situation again, I will have no complaints of course. Regards,Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Relists occur if there has been too little discussion to assess consensus. Here we had a lot of discussion, even though it was inconclusive. Sandstein 15:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That was a succinct and good close:-) ∯WBG 15:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Aprimo DRV

At Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 you indicated you did not not understand what the DRV was about. The DRV was about whether CSD G6 was properly applied and executed in the 05:01 01 February 2019 UTC deletion of the Aprimo incarnation of per guidelines and policies. The objective of DRV is for that decision to be endorsed or overturned, and if overturned to indicate what action is required … is none. If you do not fully understand which you indicated you did not the appropriate option is to relist for clarification or leave for another person to close. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Then you should have been clearer about what, exactly, you want to happen in your DRV request. I do not have anything to add to my closure. Sandstein 10:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologise for my failure to totally analyze the problem in my initial submission. A concise issue of the exact problem only became clear to me during the discussion with help from others. Thankyou for replying.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

פֿינצטערניש TBAN

You TBANed @פֿינצטערניש: from ARBPIA. It would seem to me that - 17:37, 29 January 2019 and 13:58, 14 February 2019 would fall within the scope of the TBAN. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those edits mention the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor does the topic have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry; I thought the two edits you were referring to were both on Category talk:Anti-Zionism. You are right that my edit to the Khazars page mentioned the Arab-Israeli conflict. I should not have mentioned it, but I made a mistake in my original attempt to discuss the Khazar conflict and overreached. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
פֿינצטערניש, these are indeed topic ban violations. I will not take action here in view of your statement above, but please take care not to violate your topic ban again. Sandstein 14:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)